My only argument is that there’s no conflict between science and the crux of religion, and to support that argument I am giving examples. The opinions quoted are just opinions, not authoritative assertions of fact.

@WilliamFleming "Opinions" from a few learned and knowledgeable individuals does not unify science and religion, although it might for you.. You more than likely will find many more "opinions" from learned and knowledgeable individuals that refute your argument. IMHO

Thanks. I’m going to look up the Westminster Confession right now!

Are there really cases of that happening? I’ve never heard of such a blatant act by a church. In any event, I am talking here about a very different sort of religion.

@WilliamFleming

They picket funerals of gay people apparently.

One day someone absolutely is going to blast a teapot into orbit, just for the giggles. There's already a friggin' cabriolet going around up there — you just know the teapot's coming sooner or later. ?

As I see it, the deeply religious person is busy EXPERIENCING. She is meditating, contemplating, and living each moment in the utmost sense of awe and gratitude. Such a person is too busy to argue about the existence of God. “God” is just a word that no one can define or understand, and those who want to argue just don’t get it—they lack awareness.

I really don’t think the “”God of the Gaps” idea applies to those scientists that I quoted. They well understood the limits of rationality in understanding reality. Richard Feynman, in the introduction to “QED”, the layman’s book which explains the probabilities of various paths of photons, says that we should not ask “why”. He wrote that no one knows why, and may never know. The subject is beyond science. If students ask “why” they are told to shut up and compute.

My purpose in posting those quotes is not to argue for the existence of God, rather just to show that there are ways of being deeply reverent on a personal level that are not in conflict with science. I am calling that reverence “religion”, but if you want to define religion as just dogma presented by authoritarian or fundamentalist churches, then I will have to find another word. But that would mean that Buddhists, for example would not be religious. Hmm...

@WilliamFleming What's wrong with calling it contemplative? Meditative? I can understand the "awe", for I too am fascinated and intrigued by what science has demonstrated while being curious and intrigued by what is not known and anticipating efforts to continue to push back the boundaries of ignorance.

But I don't consider that religious because it is a shift in the typical definition of what is usually meant by religious: belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power.

Your definition of religion reminds me very much of Jordan Peterson's definition and is one of the problems I have with some of his thoughts. He uses a unique definition of religion which allows him to all everyone religious as a result.

Speaking of Feynman, in his book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out also wrote:

*It is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely.

That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty… Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth.*

So what you call contemplative, meditative, I would call curiosity and considering of the ignorance in our knowledge that drives (for some) to explore and seek out better and better answers. I would not call it religious.

@RPardoe Maybe “religious” is the wrong word, however Einstein described himself as religious, and also an atheist. Hmm...

Thanks for that information about Feynman. I deeply admired Feynman.

@WilliamFleming You just need to be very clear when stating your thesis what you mean when you say religion or use a word that is more widely understood with less reliance on being defined upfront.

When looking at Einstein, he did describe himself as an agnostic or religious nonbeliever. He did not believe in a god concerned with the fates and actions of individuals. If anything, more of a pantheist - believing that the universe itself was identical to the divine.

Thank you for responding and explaining your thoughts in response to my questions.

Are you saying that Unitarians are not religious? Buddhists? Quakers? None of those require dogmatic beliefs.

@WilliamFleming I guess that we would have to disagree on that one since all of those examples do have teachings they consider to be facts for all people and dictate a lifestyle for the people that choose to practice them.
Dogma:
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

@CreativelyMe Maybe “dictate” is too strong a word in some cases. New thought churches for example do have teachings, but so does psychology, physical education, atheism, etc., etc. No one has to believe anything.

Maybe I am wrong to call the opinions of those quoted “religion”, however Einstein described himself as religious. He was a religious atheist.

@WilliamFleming Okay so I looked up the term religious and there is one definition included that would fit that description but otherwise religion is directly related to dogmatic beliefs so I guess it could be used but it seems like a contradiction in terms to me.

Definition of religion
1 a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I don’t think the kind of assertions made by deeply religious people can be proven in a rational way. It is about awareness, awe, appreciation, gratitude. Each person has to experience those things alone.

Science tries to explain reality, but the explanations are superficial—very beautiful and valuable but not answering the deep questions of existence.

@WilliamFleming I have no idea what you are trying to convey in your first paragraph. It appears to be metaphysically related...?... I don't know.
Second paragraph...what can be superficial about proof? Evidence?Fact?

There are no deep questions of existence. That would be vain and ignorant man thinking there really is something beyond what is real.

I hate texting...sometimes I sound confrontational, but am not trying to be.

Perhaps so, but some religious organizations are not all that dogmatic. New Thought churches are generally not dogmatic and require no belief. Unitarianism requires no belief and many atheists are members. The Society of Friends fosters only peace, love, and awareness, and it requires no belief. Buddhism does not speak of God at all, so an atheist would feel at home there I suppose.

Best not to stereotype.

@WilliamFleming more of a question of definition then anything to do with stereotyping.

I suspect that most of those notable scientists were very rebellious toward the dogma of organized religion, which I agree is a separate paradigm, and would be hard or impossible to integrate with the spirit of science.

In my opinion there is a deeper and more meaningful kind of religion which might be described as awareness, awe, appreciation, gratitude, etc. The Christian emphasis on belief or faith is a deep flaw IMO, but in general I see religion as a human behavior pattern rather than a body of claimed knowledge. For myself, I have tried to throw out the chaff and keep the valuable kernels.

@WilliamFleming I think those notable scientists were studying their field of interest, and building a foundation for us...todays society, to rationally and reasonably construct models to show there is no need for a dirty. Those scientists definitely didn't have the combined knowledge we share today, and with church pressure to NOT be anti-bible upon risk of excommunication , or worse, death, most of those scientists were either using hyperbole, or mistook it for hyperbole...example, its common knowledge of Einstein's religiosity, or lack thereof...

@Hutch We are not talking about ancient history here. Except for Maxwell the lives of those quoted have overlapped my own. I remember when some of them died. Churches had no more authority fifty or a hundred years ago than they have today. There were many, many atheists then, just as today, and the topic of religion was often discussed.

Scientific knowledge has advanced to some degree but physics has basically been in a quandary for a long time, with a rift between quantum physics and relativity. String theory has not caught on, but theories of quantum gravity seem promising. It makes no difference—the findings of science, while beautiful and valuable, are at heart superficial. There are very deep mysteries about reality that science does not even address, let alone explain.

To look in awe upon those mysteries—for me that is the root and essence of religion.

@WilliamFleming ... I'm sorry. I don't share your.....?